The Black Lives matter pin issue is much ado about nothing. I thought the PDs were overworked and underpaid. They have time to litigate this? But I keep thinking of the movie Animal House and the scene "Where is your pledge pin?" Now that is something to think about.

12:14, you should bone up on reading comp. Johnson's are not getting their money's worth from you as campaign manager. Nah, that is giving you too much credit. I am sure you are Susan Johnson. Was not going to vote for Levy, but thank you for convincing me to vote for her.

I hope they throw the book at Hafter. He is one of my least favorite humans. I still love the post his own mother made on Judge Johnson's Facebook page. Here Change "https://www.facebook.com/reelectjudgesusanjohnson/"

God bless anyone who can defend Hafter. That no doubt means you've not been the target of his relentless insanity. I feel bad for the guy, he needs intensive treatment. The state bar should recognize his need for mental health care and make recommendations accordingly.

The issue isn't his intellect. I don't believe the bar or those involved argued he was stupid or should be underestimated. Although I'm not sure how smart it is to call the presiding judge names in front of a jury - but to each his own. To the contrary, you should watch your back when you're adverse to the guy. He uses his religion as a weapon and has no respect for ethics. He doesn't walk the line, he crosses it with pride routinely.

Hafter was out of line. Vega was out of line. I've never dealt with the guy, but I can't help but believe anyone else would have gotten through with a public reprimand, which seems more appropriate to me, but what the hell do I know.

7:48 here. I guess part of my point was that six months is tantamount to a financial death sentence for a solo with a wife and kids at home, and seems excessive to me. But having read some of the further coverage this morning, it sounds like there are some deeper issues beyond just blowing a gasket on Facebook.

I agree that there is something else that remains unstated going on with this situation. When exactly did Hafter lose his right to criticize an elected official concerning her performance of her official duties, or to express his personal opinions as to the reason particular events were occurring?

I disagree with Hafter's opinions, but in order to protect the right of free speech, I must defend the rights of others to express ideas and beliefs I may strongly disagree with.

Hafter is a fraud and an all around unprofessional train wreck. He'll be allowed to play victim due to the RJ reporting which lends to opinions reflected by 10:53 am - which are completely valid if only that were the whole picture. The second count filed by the bar should have got him disbarred and why the RJ isn't reporting in detail on that is baffling. Hafter illegally and fraudulently hid assets, lied in sworn testimony and documents, lied to, and was under investigation by, the secretary of state, and according to the article paid nearly $60K more than the original judgment (because he had no choice). one can only speculate why the RJ is focused on the Vega nonsense. I would guess Hafter has more problems headed his way above and beyond the state bar.

10:53am - the issue with Vega was not his free speech. You're taking his bait. The issue was making comments in front of a jury that would influence their opinions and lying to judge Vega about the trial setting. The facebook post was just one fact in that entire set of facts - a fact the RJ jumped on. This further highlights the messed up RJ reporting by the way. Making this look like a 1st amendment issue when it is a courtroom decorum and truth and candor issue is pure genius on Hafters part and right in line with his MO to be a victim. He needs mental help.

Thank you to both 12:09 and 12:28. My only information about this situation was the media reporting. Misconduct in the court, especially in front of a jury is not in my opinion protected speech and if that occurred, he deserves significant sanctions. There is a correct and incorrect method to petition and seek redress for perceived wrongs.

It's exceptionally odd why the RJ isn't reporting on the fraudulent asset protection and secretary of state fraud which were a part of count II by the bar. There is no more investigative reporting - the RJ will only print what it is spoon fed. It's really a shame.

Remember the RJ has an indirect connection to the Hafter/Vega story. Vega is married to Howard Stutz, who at the time was the Gaming/Business Reporter for the RJ. The RJ has always played up the angles which involve itself. The RJ has always played up the easy to understand angles ("Lawyer Criticizes Judge") versus complicated financial structuring allegations.

To all those wanting crackdown on UPL, what are you referring to? This is an honest question. Are you referring to paralegals? Law clerks? Out of state attorneys? If a Nevada licensed attorney is overseeing their work, what's the issue? I've been practicing 7 years here and have never run across it, yet I see so many references on this blog how the Bar needs to crack down on it.

comment guidelines

Feel free to speak your mind, but please keep it work-appropriate, slander and bully-free. If you feel that a post or comment has violated this guideline, please send an email to: quickdrawmclaw@gmail.com and/or law.dawg.esq@gmail.com for review.

Sometimes things start to come together in a most curious fashion--like this for instance. Remember convicted pimp Ocean Fleming, who was ...

Total Pageviews

Posts and comments published herein generally consist of rumors, speculation, assumptions, gossip and opinions. As a result, the content and links posted herein may very well contain erroneous or inaccurate information and/or information that may change over time. The owner/admins/bloggers/posters/moderators of this site cannot and do not ensure the accuracy of any content presented herein. Moreover, the content posted herein is intended for entertainment purposes only; nothing published herein should be construed or relied upon as legal advice or as constituting an attorney-client relationship.